The best men are the ones who actively avoid women (in public) (that they don't know). CONTEXT.

Perhaps women should follow a similar ruleset, because I'll be damned if I'm going to cross the street to avoid every woman I'd pass on the sidewalk.

We often do. Here's the difference, though (keep in mind this is all general):

If a woman crosses the street because she feels uncomfortable, it's because she feels uncomfortable enough to be perceived as rude. This is harder for some people than others, because women are "supposed" to be nice/polite/etc.

If a man crosses the street because he thinks a woman feels uncomfortable, it's because he is being considerate of her feelings, and that's awesome.

And really, it only becomes scary (again, in general) if there's no one else around and/or if it's at night. So it's not that every woman you pass will be scared.

Jesus Christ, it is just so fucking depressing that YET AGAIN someone has to SAY THIS OUT LOUD. THIS IS NOT APARTHEID. NO ONE IS DEMANDING YOU STAY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET TO WOMEN AT ALL TIMES.

PEOPLE ARE MAYBE JUST SUGGESTING YOU HAVE A BIT OF FUCKING EMPATHY, RATHER THAN WHINING ABOUT YOUR MAN FEELINGS. UGH. YOU DICKS._________________Once, at a local NOW meeting where I was the only male among about a dozen women, a feminism trivia contest was held. I came in third.

What the newbies don't know, is that the people they're arguing with already have a history of basically only posting to complain and derail in the feminist threads, and either joined the forum, or resumed posting to complain about the content of these strips.

Sometimes it's just plain fun to shoot the fish in the barrel. Ka-blam.

If you realize that what you're doing is bothering someone, and you make a conscious decision not to do anything differently, then you are intentionally acting in a way that you know bothers that person.

True, but is that always wrong? (again, transitioning to nit-picky ethics)

substitute in "sexual harassment" for "bothering someone," because sexual harassment does in fact bother the people who are being sexually harassed and hey y'know what it's what you were actually talking about, and yes, that is what you're saying.

inb4 Reader1 pulls the devil's advocate card to try to save face

you directly put words in my mouth and then ask me to defend the new position YOU'VE now created for me?

I think there was a misunderstanding, here. Reader1, you thought I was being more general than I meant to be, because my wording was not as tight as it could have been. I thought the context of the conversation was enough to suggest that I meant harrassment specifically.

So, now that you know what I meant, could you respond to me as though I had said it that way the first time, please?

i should have done a better job of interpreting as well, so its mostly my fault. like stripey said, i went off topic and caused trouble for everyone. i'm sorry. put like that of course its wrong

I don't think that stripey was trying to accuse Reader1 of actually saying that, but pointing out the ridiculousness of the logical jump from going from "discomfort" as we've been using it in this conversation to other irrelevant generalized usages as if it was interchangeable.

It's not. And if you plug what "discomfort" has meant in this conversation thus far into the generalized arguments as presented, that kind if IS what it sounds like.

although I'm not sure how much you actually care, the end goals of feminism are:
an end to all systematic exploitation of one group by another and, therefore:
an end to the gender binary
an end to racism
an end to homophobia
an end to exploitative capitalism
an end to rape culture
an end to exploitative labor practices
an end to the military/prison/industrial complex
affordable healthcare (especially reproductive healthcare) and welfare, and retirement benefits, available to all
education and job training for all
maybe open borders, depending on which feminists you ask

obviously not all feminists would agree with me on all of these and some of these categories are very broad, but this is what my feminism is about, in any case.

oh, and because I'm a languages nerd (Spanish/French double major, political science minor) and thus am aware of the ways in which privileging some languages over others is a harmful legacy of colonialism, an end to the privileging of European languages over indigenous ones, required learning of at least two different foreign languages for all students.

thanks for your response. Sorry, i'm not familiar with the term gender binary, but after a quick google search, would that mean to end gender rolls/expectations? also aren't most of those just things that a good person would agree with? in which case, would you mind explaining the difference between feminism and humanitarianism?

I haven't done much research into humanitarianism, but I would guess that the difference would be that feminists see all of those struggles as interrelated, and (most) feminists support intersectional responses to these problems, because most people are oppressed on more than one axis. Humanitarianism would be like help the refugees, and help women, and help the disabled, and help queer people, but then where do the disabled queer women refugees go? If you're black and gay, and your city has a gay rights group and a black anti-racism group, which do you attend, when the gay group is likely overwhelmingly white while the anti-racism group is likely overwhelmingly straight.

Also, the humanitarian movement tends to fall into the white-savior trap- see humanitarian efforts to send food aid to Africa, instead of feeding the hungry here in America or developing the agricultural industries and infrastructure in various African countries.

I don't think that stripey was trying to accuse Reader1 of actually saying that, but pointing out the ridiculousness of the logical jump from going from "discomfort" as we've been using it in this conversation to other irrelevant generalized usages as if it was interchangeable.

It's not. And if you plug what "discomfort" has meant in this conversation thus far into the generalized arguments as presented, that kind if IS what it sounds like.